285. The Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for human rights violations is one of the positive measures States must adopt to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention, 304 pursuant to Article 1(1) of this instrument. This obligation must be assumed by the State as its inherent legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective or as a step taken by private interests that is dependent upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof. 305 This obligation remains whosoever the agent or private individual eventually found responsible for the violation. 306 Additionally, due diligence requires that the entity conducting the investigation take all the necessary actions and make all the inquiries required to achieve the result sought 307 within a reasonable time. 308 286. Based on the above, the Court will examine the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 and, to this end, it will make its analysis assessing: (a) the 2003 land usurpation complaint, and also due diligence and a reasonable time during the 2007 investigations and criminal proceedings relating to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo, and (b) due diligence and a reasonable time in relation to the 2010 complaints of land usurpation and threats to the detriment of Paulino Mejía and the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members, as well as the 2010 complaint of abuse of authority to the detriment of the said community and its members. B.2.1 2003 complaint for the offense of land usurpation, investigations and criminal proceedings relating to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo B.2.1.1 Investigations into the 2003 complaint of usurpation 287. The Court has verified that, on May 22, 2003, Félix Ordóñez Suazo filed complaint No. 188-2003 against Luis Portillo for the presumed perpetration of the offense of land usurpation 309 against himself and the Punta Piedra community because Mr. Portillo had tried to appropriate an area of approximately 2 to 5.5 hectares located within the community’s territory (supra para. 133). 288. Based on this complaint, on July 11, 2003, the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor issued an order requiring a police investigation for the DGIC to open an investigation into the facts. He also ordered that certain procedures be carried out (supra para. 134), the most important and basic of these being: identifying the accused, taking his statement 304 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, paras. 166 and 167, and Case of González Lluy et al., supra, para. 168. 305 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of González Lluy et al., supra, para. 168. 306 Cf., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 238. 307 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 65 and 83, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles, supra, para. 238. 308 Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra, paras. 65 and 83, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles, supra, para. 290. 309 The offense of usurpation established in the Honduran Criminal Code stipulates the following: “Article 227. Anyone occupying real estate or a right in rem shall be punished with two (2) to four (4) years’ imprisonment, notwithstanding that, as soon as the corresponding right in the case has been proved, the judge hearing the case shall order eviction from the property in question or the re-establishment of the right usurped.” Available at: http://www.ccit.hn/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Codigo-Pena-Honduras.pdf 81